Weird. Do real world economic class/social issues translate to the virtual world?
Not really. EverQuest's economy is rather different than Real World economies because there's only one original supplier, the game's NPCs, none of the goods decay or wear out with the exception of food (which can be freely summoned), and there are no taxes or such.
Unlike a Real World economy, over time, everyone in the EverQuest economy will gather more money, which leads to a strong, steady drop in the value of platinum, the currency. That's fine for a game, everyone can be a winner, but I don't know if a study of it will turn up any findings that are relevant in the real world.
Dont you think its a bit childish to have petitions to change the name of a movie that a company has decided on ? What about world hunger? civil rights ? rape? Nope were gonna protest about a movie
Man, that means you must be extra childish since instead of spending your time helping out the homeless, downtrodden, or battered, you're here ranting about people ranting about a movie.
Sorry sir, stop looking down your nose as people; not everyone has to devote their lives to the 'important' causes. Life would be pretty damn boring if nobody took the time to deal with some of the 'frills'.
Well, here we have a gold-plated example of a fatal flaw in a piece of commercial software, coupled to a lax attitude towards fixing it, that has without question resulted in the loss of Actual Money by a great deal of people. One would think then, that IS Managers across the world would be queuing up to sue Microsoft and recover their costs.
Sue Microsoft because your sysadmin is too lax to install a security patch that came out almost two months ago?
How do you need a choice between two open source implementations of the same.NET standard?
Think of how much more powerful the Open Source movement would be if we didn't spend half our time playing politics with other Open Source projects and instead spent that time coding.
...it's hard for people in business to Open Source seriously.
This is no different than the Gnome vs. KDE debate, or Debian vs. RedHat, or hell, even Linux vs. BSD. We fight amongst ourselves so much that we can't present a unified front against (much more organized) Closed Source efforts.
Will somebody at one of these.NET-clone projects get off their high horse and just merge the projects together? All this stupid in-fighting just goes to show that Microsoft has nothing to fear from Open Source.
But the shared source license doesn't give you the right to create derivative works. It's a "look but don't touch unless you get special permission from Microsoft first" license.
prizog, the pot that calls the kettle black wrote: The GPL does not forbid commercial use or distribution of software. This does. Please learn to read.
Please go back again and read my post, specifically the part you quoted. I'll quote the relevant section here again, with bold to point you to the parenthetical you obviously missed before turning on your flamethrower:
In fact, it's simpler, more concise, and more direct than the GPL, and arguably doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL does (aside from "commercial use" of the code)
Perhaps in the future you'll be less trigger happy to declare other people illiterate while blatantly displaying an inability to read yourself.
6) That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make.
* I don't understand this one, someone care to explain? (I think that they mean that if I make a derivitave, it is not owned by Microsoft? Or, does it mean not protected by Microsoft?)
Basically what it means is that if Microsoft had to license any 3rd party patents in order to produce the software, their license to the patents does not cover any derivative versions of the software you make and distribute, meaning if you wanted to be on the up and up, you'd have to license those patents yourself.
It sounds insidious, but it's more likely than not just in the license to cover their butts, if a derivative that uses someone else's patent becomes popular, the patent-holder can't come after Microsoft for subletting access to their patent.
All in all, their Shared Source license isn't as horrible as some Slashbots would like you to believe. In fact, it's simpler, more concise, and more direct than the GPL, and arguably doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL does (aside from "commercial use" of the code)
With M$'s focus on the 2k/XP kernel, is this just a red herring to attract good press?
Perhaps, but this is a big step for Microsoft, to release the source code to what at one time in the recent future was intended to be a flagship product of theirs, and is still in moderate to heavy use. You didn't seriously expect them to start out by opening the Windows XP codebase, did you? (And how come nobody has a similar accusation for id Software when they released the source to Wolf 3d or Quake?)
Armed with only my Hotmail login, I now have their source code on my hard drive. In other news, Hell has frozen over, pigs are flying, and the cows have come home. Film at 11.
If this picture is correct, then black holes could in principle be 'programmed': one forms a black hole whose initial conditions encode the information to be processed, lets that information be processed by the planckian dynamics at the hole's horizon, and extracts the answer to the computation by examining the correlations in the Hawking radiation emitted when the hole evaporates.
Wow! Imagine if we could make a computer as large as Earth... I believe a computer that big could calculate the answer to the question of the meaning of life, the universe, and everything!
And don't even get me started on what we could do with a Beowulf cluster of those things...
Where in the First Amendment does it say that a company/person has the right to invade my home/place of work with information I do not want?
Right, so lets go censor things we don't want on television too, since they're 'invading' your home through the non-essential service you voluntarily use.
I don't believe any MS OS gives HLT instructions to cool or "power down" the processor.
Yes they do, at least Win2k. Install SoftICE and hit the break keystroke at any random time to jump into the debugger. More often than not, you'll find it's sitting on a HLT instruction.
Linux is NOT descending into DLL hell for the simple reason that it has a logical way of maintaining the separation between major versions of DLLs. As developers are being good on Linux, DLL hell won't exist the way it does on Windows.
That's the way it is now, but it's only going to get worse as Linux gains popularity. For the reason why, let me quote another portion of your post:
(i) Windows developers got lazy and didn't put versions in their filenames.
(ii) Windows developers got lazy and put all their application DLLs on the path (ie system directory) instead of in the application directory.
The application developers got lazy. And if/when Linux picks up mass market speed, you can expect the exact same thing to happen.
Thirdly, I think the Gimp portrays what I feel is a big thing wrong with the open-source movement: copying instead of innovating. I fail to see how the mission of duplicating one of the most important software products of the last 25 years and giving it away promotes innovation.
I hate to play Devil's Advocate, but can you name one recent successful open source project that isn't just a reimplementation of something else, or of a standard?
Counter-Strike, a mod for Half-life currently has 53,849 people playing it right now... and all the Half-Life mods have a combined 65,560 people playing.
EverQuest, a game with a monthly fee, has over 80,000 players simultaneously on at peak times. Their overall subscriber numbers are probably getting close to 400,000 by now. That's almost as many people as in some small states.
But on a positive note, at least it will keep the Linux zealots quiet for a week or two about how superior they think Open Source is.
When has it ever in the past? No, this will be spun into being "proof" as to how much better Open Source is when it comes to security than Closed Source software.
Slashdot Mirror
Weird. Do real world economic class/social issues translate to the virtual world?
Not really. EverQuest's economy is rather different than Real World economies because there's only one original supplier, the game's NPCs, none of the goods decay or wear out with the exception of food (which can be freely summoned), and there are no taxes or such.
Unlike a Real World economy, over time, everyone in the EverQuest economy will gather more money, which leads to a strong, steady drop in the value of platinum, the currency. That's fine for a game, everyone can be a winner, but I don't know if a study of it will turn up any findings that are relevant in the real world.
The differences in voting systems are considered a benefit: one compromise can't rig the whole system.
How the heck do you nationally compromise a piece of paper with "BUSH" and "GORE" written on them, with a big empty checkbox next to each?
I think he wanted to help the people that wrote Cygwin, not RMS....
Dont you think its a bit childish to have petitions to change the name of a movie that a company has decided on ? What about world hunger? civil rights ? rape? Nope were gonna protest about a movie
Man, that means you must be extra childish since instead of spending your time helping out the homeless, downtrodden, or battered, you're here ranting about people ranting about a movie.
Sorry sir, stop looking down your nose as people; not everyone has to devote their lives to the 'important' causes. Life would be pretty damn boring if nobody took the time to deal with some of the 'frills'.
Well, here we have a gold-plated example of a fatal flaw in a piece of commercial software, coupled to a lax attitude towards fixing it, that has without question resulted in the loss of Actual Money by a great deal of people. One would think then, that IS Managers across the world would be queuing up to sue Microsoft and recover their costs.
Sue Microsoft because your sysadmin is too lax to install a security patch that came out almost two months ago?
Yeah, that'll work.
...why would anyone use Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3, aside from just being part of groupthink?
Have the software patents affected anyone here personally?
freedom, choices
.NET standard?
How do you need a choice between two open source implementations of the same
Think of how much more powerful the Open Source movement would be if we didn't spend half our time playing politics with other Open Source projects and instead spent that time coding.
...it's hard for people in business to Open Source seriously.
.NET-clone projects get off their high horse and just merge the projects together? All this stupid in-fighting just goes to show that Microsoft has nothing to fear from Open Source.
This is no different than the Gnome vs. KDE debate, or Debian vs. RedHat, or hell, even Linux vs. BSD. We fight amongst ourselves so much that we can't present a unified front against (much more organized) Closed Source efforts.
Will somebody at one of these
Hehe, can't seem to find that feature in IE or Netscape?
In IE: Tools > Internet Options > Security > Restricted Sites > Sites
Then add the offending site. Voila, no more annoying Javascript.
If you're still using Netscape 4... well... popup ads should be bliss for you since you obviously like pain.
But the shared source license doesn't give you the right to create derivative works. It's a "look but don't touch unless you get special permission from Microsoft first" license.
Wrong. Quoted directly from the license:
You can use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, including distributing derivatives.
I think looking at the source would be a great way to deep-six any open source projects you're working on at the time.
No, it's not.
Please read the Shared Source license (a link to it was generously provided in the article) before spouting off any FUD about it.
prizog, the pot that calls the kettle black wrote: The GPL does not forbid commercial use or distribution of software. This does. Please learn to read.
Please go back again and read my post, specifically the part you quoted. I'll quote the relevant section here again, with bold to point you to the parenthetical you obviously missed before turning on your flamethrower:
In fact, it's simpler, more concise, and more direct than the GPL, and arguably doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL does (aside from "commercial use" of the code)
Perhaps in the future you'll be less trigger happy to declare other people illiterate while blatantly displaying an inability to read yourself.
[ck@server1 ck]$ cd wince300 // fuck Linus Torvalds!
[ck@server1 ck]$ grep -r fuck *
private/winceos/coreos/nk/schedule.c:
Those sneaky bastards!
6) That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make.
* I don't understand this one, someone care to explain? (I think that they mean that if I make a derivitave, it is not owned by Microsoft? Or, does it mean not protected by Microsoft?)
Basically what it means is that if Microsoft had to license any 3rd party patents in order to produce the software, their license to the patents does not cover any derivative versions of the software you make and distribute, meaning if you wanted to be on the up and up, you'd have to license those patents yourself.
It sounds insidious, but it's more likely than not just in the license to cover their butts, if a derivative that uses someone else's patent becomes popular, the patent-holder can't come after Microsoft for subletting access to their patent.
All in all, their Shared Source license isn't as horrible as some Slashbots would like you to believe. In fact, it's simpler, more concise, and more direct than the GPL, and arguably doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL does (aside from "commercial use" of the code)
With M$'s focus on the 2k/XP kernel, is this just a red herring to attract good press?
Perhaps, but this is a big step for Microsoft, to release the source code to what at one time in the recent future was intended to be a flagship product of theirs, and is still in moderate to heavy use. You didn't seriously expect them to start out by opening the Windows XP codebase, did you? (And how come nobody has a similar accusation for id Software when they released the source to Wolf 3d or Quake?)
Armed with only my Hotmail login, I now have their source code on my hard drive. In other news, Hell has frozen over, pigs are flying, and the cows have come home. Film at 11.
But the calculator *still* can't do squares.
View Menu > Scientific
Enter your number, and click the "x^2" button
It's been this way since at least Windows 3.1
and, pardon the gross simplification, thus you can not be suid if anything goes wrong
Nah. Just find a buffer overflow and you'll be suid in no time.
Imagine how cool it would be if they actually had stable drivers!
At the rate NVidia's been going, they'll have stable GeForce3 drivers around the time the GeForce4 comes out. Don't hold your breath.
If this picture is correct, then black holes could in principle be 'programmed': one forms a black hole whose initial conditions encode the information to be processed, lets that information be processed by the planckian dynamics at the hole's horizon, and extracts the answer to the computation by examining the correlations in the Hawking radiation emitted when the hole evaporates.
Wow! Imagine if we could make a computer as large as Earth... I believe a computer that big could calculate the answer to the question of the meaning of life, the universe, and everything!
And don't even get me started on what we could do with a Beowulf cluster of those things...
Where in the First Amendment does it say that a company/person has the right to invade my home/place of work with information I do not want?
Right, so lets go censor things we don't want on television too, since they're 'invading' your home through the non-essential service you voluntarily use.
I don't believe any MS OS gives HLT instructions to cool or "power down" the processor.
Yes they do, at least Win2k. Install SoftICE and hit the break keystroke at any random time to jump into the debugger. More often than not, you'll find it's sitting on a HLT instruction.
Linux is NOT descending into DLL hell for the simple reason that it has a logical way of maintaining the separation between major versions of DLLs. As developers are being good on Linux, DLL hell won't exist the way it does on Windows.
That's the way it is now, but it's only going to get worse as Linux gains popularity. For the reason why, let me quote another portion of your post:
(i) Windows developers got lazy and didn't put versions in their filenames. (ii) Windows developers got lazy and put all their application DLLs on the path (ie system directory) instead of in the application directory.
The application developers got lazy. And if/when Linux picks up mass market speed, you can expect the exact same thing to happen.
Thirdly, I think the Gimp portrays what I feel is a big thing wrong with the open-source movement: copying instead of innovating. I fail to see how the mission of duplicating one of the most important software products of the last 25 years and giving it away promotes innovation.
I hate to play Devil's Advocate, but can you name one recent successful open source project that isn't just a reimplementation of something else, or of a standard?
Counter-Strike, a mod for Half-life currently has 53,849 people playing it right now... and all the Half-Life mods have a combined 65,560 people playing.
EverQuest, a game with a monthly fee, has over 80,000 players simultaneously on at peak times. Their overall subscriber numbers are probably getting close to 400,000 by now. That's almost as many people as in some small states.
But on a positive note, at least it will keep the Linux zealots quiet for a week or two about how superior they think Open Source is.
When has it ever in the past? No, this will be spun into being "proof" as to how much better Open Source is when it comes to security than Closed Source software.